Yes, I know, another study. Ugh! This one does have some interesting information. For one thing it has a graphic which shows the time spent working to pay for one's mode of transit. This is juxtaposed against another graphic showing travel time. The end result is that you can see how much of your time your transit mode demands from you. These results are broken down by income brackets, as the less money you make, the more time you have to work to pay for transit. The VC advocates will love this statement made in the study:

Quote:

However, the facility designs preferred by novice cyclists are sometimes disliked by experienced road cyclists. If changes in facilities end up worsening conditions for experienced cyclists who do the majority of travel by bicycle, the total amount of bicycle transportation may actually decrease.Many existing cyclists care more about the conditions they face on a day-to-day basis than the overall popularity of their travel mode. These cyclists may exhibit skepticism toward plans to make cycling more popular if it is not clear that such plans will preserve or improve conditions for their own cycling habits

I'm inclined to like that statement, too. If bike lanes meant my being banned from roads, I'd fight alongside Helmet Head to stop them.

Old study, but look at the table with the number of accidents. Most on this forum are super concerned about being rear ended, that is way down on accident frequency.

But those numbers are not from the study, rather they are used in the paper and taken from Forster. Hardly convincing if one is unsure about V.C. (Not to say they are not right, just that they are far from free of the appearance of bias).

In case you didn't know, the author of that study is a participant of this forum.

If my time is worth what they pay me at work, and if you count all the money I've spent in the last year on bikes, riding my bike costs me way more than driving by a huge amount. But cost isn't a valid measure for me. I believe that if you enjoy something you should spend your money there rather than skimp and spend all your money on stuff you don't care about much. I don't care about driving, so I don't spend any time or money doing that if I can help it.

In case you didn't know, the author of that study is a participant of this forum.

And one of his favorite constructs is quoted by the OP:
"However, the facility designs preferred by novice cyclists are sometimes disliked by experienced road cyclists. If changes in facilities end up worsening conditions for experienced cyclists who do the majority of travel by bicycle, the total amount of bicycle transportation may actually decrease. Many existing cyclists care more about the conditions they face on a day-to-day basis than the overall popularity of their travel mode. These cyclists may exhibit skepticism toward plans to make cycling more popular if it is not clear that such plans will preserve or improve conditions for their own cycling habits"

Who are these "experienced cyclists", who measured their miles, and who says that any of it is for transportation/utility purposes? In fact who says that the "experienced road cyclists" cycle more on a day to day basis than the "inexperienced" day laborers, school children, college students, etc. who may find that the facilities improve their cycling experience.

I don't buy into his construct that road cyclists earn extra votes on transportation or recreational facility designs for their miles run up on the weekend on their club training rides and organized events.

No, I agree, this study is just more VC spin, disguised as some sort of academic report, using old data from Forrester.

Quite True. Old so-called "data" from Forester, diced and sliced to fit his assumptions. It isn't just an "appearance" of bias.

The humantransport.org's manifesto (cited by OP) parroting of sophomic Forester analysis of Forester cherry picked data snippets diminishes the credibility of the manifesto. The authors' inability/unwillingness to distinguish dreck from data (when it supports the desired assumption) is obvious.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Who are these "experienced cyclists", who measured their miles, and who says that any of it is for transportation/utility purposes? In fact who says that the "experienced road cyclists" cycle more on a day to day basis than the "inexperienced" day laborers, school children, college students, etc. who may find that the facilities improve their cycling experience.

I don't buy into his construct that road cyclists earn extra votes on transportation or recreational facility designs for their miles run up on the weekend on their club training rides and organized events.

Hear, hear.

VC spin dressed up as populist bike policy! What a distinctly ANTI-bicyclist stance.

Yesterday I spent about 3 hours on the bike, and saw about %90 utilitarian, 'disenfranchized' bicyclists, and only one or two clubbies in kit....and almost everyone wasn't wearing helmets!

I think the utilitarian and beginning bicyclist deserve greater accomodation than clubbies that hardly even ride. And in CA, I don't know that there's a law restricting a bicyclist to the bike lanes, is there?

I don't think Helmet Dude is fighting that fight, he uses a C.L.A.P.P.E.R. technique....

If my time is worth what they pay me at work, and if you count all the money I've spent in the last year on bikes, riding my bike costs me way more than driving by a huge amount.

I don't understand? This must be for bike purchases way above and beyond what is necessary for commuting.

The last two bicycles I purchased (one of which gets me to work most days) cost me a total of $65, not including occasional maintenance. My wife and I recently bought a very nice (but economical) new car last year, a 2005 Toyota Corolla. We pay $400 a month in car payments, and about $100 a month in fuel costs. All I can say is I'm glad we aren't paying for two cars.

Sometimes I wonder if you ladies and gents aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction by automatically rejecting anything that's said by a cyclist who you know has a predisposed anti-bike facility bent. It seems to me intellectually dishonest, even if those you disagree with might be posessed of the same difficulty.

I don't understand? This must be for bike purchases way above and beyond what is necessary for commuting.

The last two bicycles I purchased (one of which gets me to work most days) cost me a total of $65, not including occasional maintenance. My wife and I recently bought a very nice (but economical) new car last year, a 2005 Toyota Corolla. We pay $400 a month in car payments, and about $100 a month in fuel costs. All I can say is I'm glad we aren't paying for two cars.

Sometimes I wonder if you ladies and gents aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction by automatically rejecting anything that's said by a cyclist who you know has a predisposed anti-bike facility bent. It seems to me intellectually dishonest, even if those you disagree with might be posessed of the same difficulty.

I guess I should have included one of those smilies in my post.

In the last year or so I've bought two rather expensive bikes which I have used for commuting. Now I have a selection of 3 bikes (well, 2 bikes and one trike) to choose from each morning. For all the bikes in the past year or so I've bought all sorts of gadgets, clothes and accessories to enhance the commute. If you add all that up it's way more than I've spent on my old 1994, fully paid for truck that molders in the driveway totally ignored.

Also, it you consider that it takes me twice as long to ride to work as to drive, and my time is worth $x, then I'm spending more dollars on my bike commute.

Now, here's where the forum smiley should say to you: It's money well spent. I'm loving every minute of it. If I hadn't re-started bike commuting 2 years ago then I'd still have an old mountain bike hanging on a hook, I wouldn't have my trike and recumbent, I wouldn't have met all the nice recumbent riders all over the country (and world), I'd be buying more gasoline, and I wouldn't be starting and ending every workday with fun.

In the last year or so I've bought two rather expensive bikes which I have used for commuting. Now I have a selection of 3 bikes (well, 2 bikes and one trike) to choose from each morning. For all the bikes in the past year or so I've bought all sorts of gadgets, clothes and accessories to enhance the commute. If you add all that up it's way more than I've spent on my old 1994, fully paid for truck that molders in the driveway totally ignored.

Also, it you consider that it takes me twice as long to ride to work as to drive, and my time is worth $x, then I'm spending more dollars on my bike commute.

Now, here's where the forum smiley should say to you: It's money well spent. I'm loving every minute of it. If I hadn't re-started bike commuting 2 years ago then I'd still have an old mountain bike hanging on a hook, I wouldn't have my trike and recumbent, I wouldn't have met all the nice recumbent riders all over the country (and world), I'd be buying more gasoline, and I wouldn't be starting and ending every workday with fun.

Worth every penny I tell ya.

I don't look at the commute as time spent. If I drove to work, I would have to find other time to exercise, so I my commute saves time by combining commute and exercise.